greenspandan Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 If they had strong religious beliefs, I doubt they would give the kid up for adoption, wat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Well, that shut me up. lol Rereading my post, I still stand by it, but it was a tad harsher than intended. Still, I am amazed at how few people seem to grasp the reality of the foster and adoption situation here in the U.S. I just can't help wonder how many people would have the same views on Abortion, Planned Parenthood, who can foster/adopt, states' aid for foster care, states' positions on stipends for adoptions, etc. if they were in the system to see its warts. For the reccord, this is not a call for funding, just understanding. Peoples' love, time and efforts are in short supply. Heck, I just told a coworker if she wanted to foster or adopt a child she probably could. She thought there was no way she would be approved because she is a single mom. The truth is the need is so much greater than people appreciate. Turning people away isn't the goal (or at least should not be, hence my shame on the religous institutions for imposing their morals as a requirement). The goal should be getting them ready to help. Anyone can help, and everyone has something to offer at some level. Even child-care for those in need follows basic market principals of supply and demand, and right now the demand for parents is high while the numbers stepping up is low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 See what happens when you fix your economy... way too much time on your hands to put forth crazy laws.. Adoption should be easy for those that can show steadiness, that should be about it. Same Job, Same house, a couple bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Virginia Senate passes adoption discrimination bill **** this state. **** Bob McDonnell and Ken Cuccinelli. "Hey Bob, I have a great idea!" "What's that Ken?" "You know how we have a ton of kids in the foster system and plenty of couples that are financially stable and are qualified in every way to raise them except for the fact that they happen to be homosexual?" "Yeah" "Let's deny those kids a chance to live in a home with two parents because we're complete and total ****-heads who have no idea how sexual orientation works and somehow cling to this stupid ****ing idea that gay people will influence kid's sexual interests" "That's a GREAT idea! Let's force women to have invasive procedures as well because I don't feel like we've been ****ish enough today!' At least, that's how I assume that conversation went. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Yup. That's some pathetic ****. And I sympathize with gbear's earlier comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 There's something on Darrel's link that caught my attention: Proponents say the measure protects the religious rights of agencies that contract with the state to provide child placement services. Opponents say the state should not sanction discrimination. Now, we're talking about agencies that receive taxpayer funds? (Maybe more importantly, agencies that are paid, by the state, for doing exactly what is being described. Not just "well, the agency does X, but they also get taxpayer funds for doing Y") I'm also wondering: We're talking about kids where the parents, when they placed the kid, said "I want my kid to be handled by Baptist Adoption Agency"? I'm wondering why, if the parents dealt with the adoption agency directly, why the state is paying for it at all. ---------- And Darrell, I think the conversation went more like "Hey, I bet there are a 100 times more people who hate gays, than there are gays. And the gays won't vote for us, anyway. So I bet if we pass a gay bashing bill, we'll get a lot more votes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 And Darrell, I think the conversation went more like "Hey, I bet there are a 100 times more people who hate gays, than there are gays. And the gays won't vote for us, anyway. So I bet if we pass a gay bashing bill, we'll get a lot more votes." Probably. One of McDonnell's first acts was to remove 'sexual orientation' from VA's code (or something, I forget the details and I'm too lazy to look it up) on illegal discrimination. Just wanted to stroke the conservative base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Perhaps the conversation was more along the lines of: "Hey Ken" "Hey Bob. So that bill is pretty cool" "Yup. Glad we got that pushed through. Should get us some votes" "Totally" "..." "..." "So...uh...meet you in the men's room at 6:00 again?" "Thought you'd never ask" On a more serious note, this bill is complete bull****. Completely ridiculous not just in general but for the reasons Larry brought up as well as far as the state paying for it all, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 bingo. Though in honest opinion, I actually think a very robust adoption system in this country would be a federal program I could possibly get behind. I know thats not my normal MO, but when it comes to the lives of children getting right, I'm a softy. What is this? A crack in the libertarian armor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 This is a continual theme among conservatives. They want "sexual orientation" removed from every piece of legislation or document that has anything to do with rights and/or equality because they want the right to basically say, "my religion says I can hate gays" It's pretty slimy and disgusting, and if you think it stops with sexual orientation, just wait. Discrimination is discrimination. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Courtesy George Takei: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 What is this? A crack in the libertarian armor? LOL, it probably is a bit of a crack, but admittedly, I'm a bit more of a little "r" rebublican (not the Party, but the principle) than a libertarian. I think there is a ton of overlap between the 2. Mainly I feel that a very, very robust adoption system would mean more for individual rights, even with government sponsorship because I believe that each unborn is as much of an individual with their own rights as I am. I'd still prefer more of a local/state level approach, but could swallow a Federal one if it meant the destruction of all abortions that are meant to save the life of the Mom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 It's embarrassing how hard Virginia is fighting for the title of craziest state. Man, I thought Arizona and New Mexico had it all sewn up, but Virginia is giving them a hard run for their money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Here's the funny part. I read a poll in the local fish wrap last week that said the majority of Virginians (you know the folks the legislature are supposed to represent) are opposed to repealing the 1 hand gun per month law and legislation that would force a woman to get an ultrasound prior to an abortion. http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2012/feb/19/tdmain01-poll-finds-most-back-status-quo-ar-1700089/ Frankly, as a Virginian , I'm ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 It's embarrassing how hard Virginia is fighting for the title of craziest state. Man, I thought Arizona and New Mexico had it all sewn up, but Virginia is giving them a hard run for their money Arizona's still pushing hard for the title Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 In related news: Senate defeats bill to reverse birth control rule http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20120301/US.Birth.Control.Politics/?cid=hero_media_sea The 51-48 vote killed an amendment that would have allowed employers and insurers to opt out of portions of the president's health care law they found morally objectionable. That would have included the law's requirement that insurers cover the costs of birth control. Democrats said the measure would have allowed employers and insurers to opt out of virtually any medical treatment with the mere mention of a moral or religious objection."We have never had a conscience clause for insurance companies," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. The measure would have given insurers more opportunities to deny coverage for certain treatments, she added. "A lot of them don't have any consciences. They'll take it," Boxer said. Republicans argued that the law needs to be reversed because it violates the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom by forcing insurers and employers to pay for contraception even if their faith forbids its use. Democrats said the amendment, sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo, was an assault on women's rights and could be used to cancel virtually any part of the law. Voting with Republicans in favor of the amendment were Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, both up for re-election, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who is retiring. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who only this week abandoned her re-election bid out of frustration with the polarized Congress, was the lone Republican to vote to defeat the amendment. <more at link> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 NOVA separating itself from the rest of the state is sounding like a better idea all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 NOVA separating itself from the rest of the state is sounding like a better idea all the time.??????Republicans in Northern Virginia voted in lock step for these kooky bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 ??????Republicans in Northern Virginia voted in lock step for these kooky bills. This is true, but NOVA is predominantly not republican AND republican CITIZENS in NOVA (as opposed to repub politicians) typically turn on economic and not social issues. For the record, I am in favor of NOVA being it's own state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.